G. True Nelson: Former Deputy Sheriff, Military Officer, FBI Special Agent, and Security Consultant / Private Investigator. He currently resides in the Portland, Oregon Metro area. He is a writer on crime and judicial process; as well as discussing his personal observations on American culture and social mores.

RETURN

Monday, December 29, 2014

Regarding my previous post and the statistical chart, a
friend advised, after reading same and reviewing the chart, that my interpretation
of the chart reflects my bias. He might
be right. I am not an advocate of
legalized, recreational marijuana. I do
think that the current policy (in Oregon) to legalize marijuana is a mistake –
and will be particularly detrimental to our young people. That said, maybe, over time, we will learn to
live with marijuana, and any associated abuses; just as we have with alcohol. I hope so.
But, I still believe there will be considerable collateral damage in the
meantime.

The chart: Well, I
understand that statistics can lie and that liars use statistics. However, not capable of conducting my own in-depth
research on the subject, I considered the source fairly reputable.

What I thought was particularly shocking was the reported
statistic that approximately 20% of high schoolers have, pretty consistently
since the year 2000, used marijuana ‘within the past 30 days.’ If true, I am totally out-of-touch with what
is considered typical at an American high school.

My friend pointed-out the 1.5% drop in MJ usage 2013 to 2014 – and that
it was a positive indicator – in his opinion.
Personally, I’m not so sure. One
year doesn’t necessarily indicate a trend.

So, how do we explain that smoking in high school is way,
way down, and marijuana usage remains at one out of five students? Has the campaign against smoking worked in a
spectacular way? Have cigarettes just
become too darned expensive for the average high school student? What’s going on? Are there any high school teachers that can
help me out on this?

Furthermore, what will the high school student usage of MJ
be as more and more states legalize it?
I think usage will go up; but, I could be wrong – it wouldn’t be the
first time.

Saturday, December 27, 2014

In case you missed it.
Of particular note to all the self-assured parents and grandparents who
voted for legalized, recreational marijuana, with the understanding that said
legalization would not impact minors (possession of which is illegal for those
under 21 years of age), there is good news and bad news.

From an article by Elena Holodny, Business Insider, dated 12/23/14:
‘America’s High School Kids Prefer
Weed.’

The good news: Ms. Holodny’s research has shown that cigarette smoking has
trended down: “Only 10.3% (High
Schoolers) have reportedly smoked a cigarette in the past 30 days, down from
27.4% in 2000”

The bad news: However, as the above chart shows; “The gap between marijuana and cigarette
usage is widening. Until 2008,
cigarettes were the preferred option, but now weed is clearly the go-to for
those in High-School.”

Cigarette companies are now pondering the feasibility of
entering the marijuana business – clearly a growth industry; and an apparently attractive commodity to our youth.

For the tobacco industry, a new motto might be, or is it
their old motto, ‘Get ‘em while they’re young.’

Sunday, December 21, 2014

I’m not going to mince words here. The New York protesters that walked the
streets chanting, “What do you want?
Dead Cops! When do you want
it? Now!” are in large part
responsible for the assassination of the two New York City Police Officers, Rafael
Ramos and Wenjin Lin.

And to those protesters, I say: ‘Don’t try and rationalize it. You brought this on and you are responsible. This is part of your life’s legacy. This is the shame you have brought on your
families. There is nothing you can do or
say, at this point, that will in any way absolve you from blame or shame. Please just do us all a favor and slink back
to your pathetic, meaningless lives.’

I just want the New York PD and the officers’ families, to
know that many of us, most of us, throughout this country, morn their loss. It was so unnecessary and tragic.

And, as for your mayor, Bill de Blasio, what can I say? The majority of New Yorkers voted for him.

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

I have to
restrain myself from saying what I would really like to say about this individual.

He was recently fired from Nordstrom’s in Portland
for posting on Facebook what normal,
decent people would consider one of the most hateful, distasteful, stupid and
racist statements imaginable.

He
wrote: “Instead of slamming the police, I prefer a Kenny Fort approach. Every time an unarmed black man is killed,
you kill a decorated white officer, on his door step in front of his family.”

(Actually Hodges was referring to Jeff Fort)

According to
The Oregonian article 12/17/14, Hodges stated that the comment was taken out of
context and that he didn’t actually mean for it to be literally interpreted.OK, I understand. And, if I was to say that Hodges was a moron, I am not inferring that he is literally a moron - he is, however, a moron, figuratively speaking.

Nordstrom’s
did ask Hodges to seek work elsewhere. I'm sure they were very polite about it. Nordstrom’s is, after all, a responsible employer
in our community. And very accommodating too. According to the Oregonian, Hodges had been
previously convicted for Assault, Forgery, and “eight counts of manufacturing
and delivering drugs.”

Nordstrom’s employment
philosophy is, apparently, that everyone deserves a second, third, fourth,
perhaps a fifth chance. Makes one wonder
where Mr. Hodges was working at Nordstrom’s.
He’d be a good fit for HR, or even the Accounting Department.

Oh, yes, and
who exactly is Jeff Fort?

Per Wikipedia: “Jeff Fort is a former Chicago gang leader.
Fort was convicted of drug trafficking in 1983 and sentenced to 13 years in
prison. He is currently serving a 155 year prison sentence after being
convicted of terrorism conspiracy in 1987 for
plotting to commit attacks inside the U.S. in exchange for weapons and $2.5
million from Libya.”

Thursday, December 4, 2014

Some final words on the Michael Brown, Ferguson
incident. It is with some sadness that I
see this growing racial divide in our country.
I thought we were making good progress over the years; but now it seems
we are in a period of regression or entrenchment. It makes me wonder what is going on. Has our President, and his recent comments, reduced the racial divide or widened it? More likely the latter, in my opinion.

I suppose, as many have said, there are numerous
reasons: unemployment, poor schools, and
the breakdown in the traditional family unit, on and on. There are, of course, no easy answers.

I am supportive of the police. Generally speaking they do a very good job
under difficult and sometimes dangerous situations.

As an FBI Agent in the 70s, I considered myself racially
unbiased – for the most part. In my
prior military experience, I worked with many minorities. In the military, quite frankly, one becomes
‘color blind’ to that sort of thing. A
couple of my best friends were African Americans – wonderful guys. There were ‘Black’ Agents in the Bureau as
well – and my feelings were the same for those of them who were my co-workers.

On the other hand, in the San Francisco Bay area, during the
70s, this was the era of the Black Panthers, the SLA, the Black Liberation
Army, the Weather Underground, the Red Guerilla Family, etc., etc. The individuals who made up these groups;
well, let’s just say, I had nothing in common with them. Many were dangerous criminals. They were the enemy. Harsh words, I know. And, I also am aware that many people, now,
have an idealized, albeit unrealistic image of the 70’s groups referenced
above. I do not. All I can say is that you were not there, you
didn’t know these people like I did.

Let me describe, very briefly, a typical arrest in the
Oakland projects. Four Agents would go
inside the multi-story building to make the arrest. Two Agents stayed behind, on the street, to
protect the Bureau cars. While you
waited on the street, you had a bit of a dilemma. You couldn’t hide or show fear. Standing in plain sight, as each second passed,
you wondered if someone was taking aim at your head from an adjacent
building. Going inside, well,
that was like entering another world, filled with sullen, hateful, alien
eyes. You moved as fast as you could,
hoping that everything would go smoothly with no confrontation. If the subject resisted, all hell would break
loose.

Are there some ‘white folks’ out there, liberal types, who
would say, “I’d love to have that job.”?
I doubt it. Are there ‘blacks’
out there who would welcome the opportunity to make an arrest in the
‘projects’? I doubt that too. African American Police Officers and Agents
know the dangers more than anyone.

So
what can we conclude about those in law enforcement? Surprisingly, most of the guys and gals are
pretty high quality, and quite rational. Law enforcement personnel, many of them,
are a cut above. Yes, there are more
than a few bad cops. But, the majority risk their lives to protect us – and we should honor them.

Police work is not, should not, be considered warfare. The mission of the police is to serve and to protect.
And, arresting bad people is part of
protecting honest citizens. But, in
a microcosm, in the rare one on one confrontation, there are similarities to
warfare. And, we the public, should
understand that. There are risks,
dangers, fears, and even sometimes collateral damage involved in enforcing the
law and protecting the majority. That’s
the way it is. That’s the way it has
always been.

If I could quote John Stuart Mill (a liberal in his time) briefly,
and in a slightly redacted form – with the understanding that he was speaking
of war, not law enforcement. That said,
might there be some relevance in Mill’s words that we all should consider?

"The person who
has nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a
miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by
the exertions of better men than himself."

Wednesday, November 26, 2014

There are some aspects of the Michael Brown
shooting that trouble me. As a former
deputy sheriff, FBI Agent and FBI firearms instructor, I would not have reacted
as Ferguson Police Officer, Darren Wilson, did; and I’ll tell you why.

This is not a criticism of Officer Wilson. He probably reacted appropriately and in
accord with his training.

When I was in law enforcement, the weapon of
the day (really not that long ago) was a .357 magnum revolver. It held six rounds. By training and experience, a deputy or an Agent
knew exactly how many rounds / bullets had been fired, and how many live rounds
remained available - at all times. Now,
I’d be willing to wager, cops involved in shootings generally have no idea. If someone, after the shooting of Michael
Brown, had asked Wilson how many shots he’d fired from his semi-automatic’s
large capacity clip, he would have probably shrugged his shoulders.

With the large capacity clips, I can say with
certainty, law enforcement training has been downgraded (in my opinion) to
maximize firepower over marksmanship and related tactics.

Would I have killed Michael Brown under the
same circumstances? I don’t know. What I do know is that I probably would not
have started firing at the distances reported, and probably fired no more than
twice before making a split second evaluation of the effect. First, Wilson knew, or apparently knew, that
Brown did not have a weapon. Secondly, a
properly placed bullet will stop someone at very close range, if you’re
confident in hitting what you are shooting at.
However, I would not have let Brown engage me in some sort of wrestling
match for the possession of my firearm.
As I’ve said before, many cops are killed with their own gun.

The other troubling aspect is Wilson’s approach
to Brown. Reportedly, Wilson knew that
Brown was a suspect in a ‘strong-arm’ robbery.
Wilson should never have allowed the suspect to get so close to him when
he (Wilson) was still seated in his vehicle.
And, apparently, Wilson attempted to talk to Brown through the
rolled-down window of his patrol car.
That was his first mistake. I
guess that Wilson’s explanation was that when he attempted to get out of his
vehicle, Brown pushed the door closed, and then began to assault Wilson through
the open window. Regardless, Wilson was
too close to Brown while still in his vehicle.

This is a tragedy for everyone concerned. Wilson was recently asked if he would have
done anything differently. He responded
that he would not have. My thought is of
course he would have. His career and
personal life are in tatters, and he narrowly escaped prosecution.

It is reported that Michael Brown had marijuana
in his system. To my knowledge, MJ does
not cause the type of behavior he exhibited on that fateful day. Brown, from all indications, was an angry,
possibly mentally impaired, individual looking for trouble. It cost him his life. Yes, he was just eighteen; and that is sad. But, he was dangerous nonetheless. If he had reached Wilson, he could have potentially killed a police officer who was only trying to do his job.

Saturday, November 22, 2014

Some of you may be aware that, besides this commentary blog - which I enjoy doing, I also like to occasionally write short stories. I have recently posted a short story on my sister blog: Online True Stories. The title of the most recent story is The Letter.Said story and previous stories can be found at the following. They are probably best read in the indicated order:

Monday, November 17, 2014

I
don’t know if you noticed – or much less care – but Canada just enacted a new
law outlining the illegalities associated with prostitution. The dubious premise of this law is that it is
not illegal to prostitute oneself; but it is illegal to offer to purchase the
product. Now, if you are trying to make
sense of this law, good luck with that.

“The law legalizes
the sale of sex. However, interactions and communications between prostitutes,
johns and pimps, remains illegal. And so is the purchase of sex.”

This
has been described as the ‘Nordic’ model, which is supposed to give it a
modicum of credibility. Theoretically, it
protects the female, or in some cases male, prostitute – who is, under law,
considered a victim.

Now
let me get this straight. Here is a
woman who makes her living selling sex, but she is the ‘victim.’ The ‘john,’ on the other hand, who makes his
living as a bank-teller or auto mechanic and who accepts an offer from a ‘woman
who makes her living selling sex’; well, he goes to jail. OK.
I’ve got it. I guess.

How
this new law squares with the commonly accepted legal provisions of ‘entrapment,’
I have no idea.

So,
how might this work? Perhaps, you are a
tourist walking down the street in Vancouver, BC doing a little shopping or
planning to stop off somewhere for a spot of tea and a crumpet. Mind you, I didn’t say strumpet, I said
crumpet – which is entirely innocent and can be quite tasty.

As
you stroll along, a young, attractive woman approaches you and says she is
selling sex for money – or she might even be holding a sign that says she is
selling sex for money. Now, up until
that point, a roll in the hay was not something you had considered (not sure if
they have hay in Vancouver, but you get the idea). However, you, in a joking sort of way, not
meaning to be rude, respond with, “How much will it cost me?” Mistake! Coincidentally, a shopkeeper overhears the conversation and summons the
police. Very shortly, you find yourself
at the local jail. Whereupon, with
typical Canadian civility, before locking you in a cell, the jail staff allows
you to call your wife who is taking a nap at the local Sheraton. She, the wife, is not happy about your
confused and feeble explanation.

This
got me thinking about other laws that the Canadian authorities should consider
enacting. How about these:

It’s
not against the law to sell illegal drugs; but it is against the law to
purchase them. Justification: Many ‘dealers’ come from broken homes, hardscrabble
lives, and might (in some cases) be minorities – therefore victims in their own
right.

It’s
not against the law to sell stolen property, but it is against the law to buy
it.

Or, consider this? A massage costs $200, which seems to be kind of expensive. But, the young lady throws-in, as a free bonus, a roll in the hay. The massage is two hundred, but the roll in the hay is 'free' just because she likes you and would like you to return. Sorry about the continuing hay reference, which most sophisticated urbanites will not understand, but other terminology seems rather tasteless.I
can think of other possible scenarios, but I will leave it at that. I just wanted to say to the Canadian
legislators who enacted this prostitution law:
‘Thanks for giving me a good laugh.’

Tuesday, November 11, 2014

Too bad this study didn’t come out before Oregon legalized
recreational marijuana. But, anyone who
has spent time with a chronic marijuana user already knew this – that chronic use
of marijuana shrinks your brain and lowers your IQ. Maybe that recent study would have affected the vote in
Oregon. Ah, no, I don’t think so.

According to researchers at the Center for Brain Health at
the University of Texas – Dallas:

“Compared with a person who never smoked marijuana, someone
who uses marijuana regularly has, on average, less gray matter in his orbital
frontal cortex, a region that is a key node in the brain's reward, motivation,
decision-making and addictive behaviors network.” (Findings published in the Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences.)

What the researchers were unable to determine is whether or
not the marijuana users’ brains were abnormal and IQs lower before they started
using marijuana; which, of course, could have been the case.

However, it has actually been known for a
long time that chronic use of marijuana has a detrimental effect on a brain,
particularly in younger people. But, not
to worry MJ users – a loss of 8 to 10 points in your IQ is a small price to
pay.

I guess what really interested me, in Oregon’s recent
election, was the large turnout by young voters reportedly motivated by their
opportunity to vote for legalized ‘pot.’

Also, counter to what one might suppose, demographic studies seem
to have also indicated that most young voters voted for ‘package labeling
regarding GMOs,’ genetically modified food products. This measure, in spite of the youth vote,
failed. Nonetheless, young people are apparently
concerned about what they put in their bodies – with the possible exception of
marijuana – which they have determined is basically a harmless, fun thing.

Well, youngsters, you should know, according to the Mayo
Clinic, that:

There are approximately 480 chemical components in marijuana
– approximately 60 known to only exist in marijuana; and that most of those particular
chemicals and their effect on the human body is, as yet, unknown.

THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) is, of course, the main
component and primarily responsible for the mind altering effect. At least that is what scientists believe.

And last, but not least, marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70%
more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco.
Furthermore, the manner in which marijuana is used – one inhales and
holds the smoke for a period of time to maximize the effect – increases carcinogenic
exposure and possible cell damage.

So, Bill Clinton was right.
Go ahead and use the marijuana, but just don’t inhale.

Saturday, November 8, 2014

Did you ever wonder where the colors ‘blue’ for Democratic states and ‘red’ for Republican states came from? I did.
The colors seem counter-intuitive, don’t they? Lincoln was a Republican and the Union Army
wore blue. Political leftists, socialist,
anarchists, and dare I say communists, have, over the years, been referred to
as ‘Reds.’ The 1981 motion picture ‘Reds’
staring Warren Beatty was about a leftist activist and socialist writer. Democrats are now described as on the ‘left;’
and Republicans on the ‘right.’

So I wondered if modern day journalists, or even
politicians, sat down together and decided that calling the Democratic states 'red states' cut a little too close to the bone; and was, perhaps, inappropriate. But, why are there Blue and Red states anyway? Why not green and yellow, or some other
combination?

Well, it appears that the color coding of states during elections
was mostly due to color television.
During the 1976 Presidential Election, NBC constructed a large
illuminated US map. If Jimmy Carter (the
Democrat) won a state, it lighted-up red.
If Gerald Ford (the Republican) won a state it lighted up blue. This manner of reporting the states’ election
results subsequently became very popular and ubiquitous.
But, as you might have noted, the colors, at the time, were the opposite of what they
are now.

In the 1984 Presidential election, CBS used the opposite
color scheme; red for Republican and blue for Democrat. However, various networks and news sources
used either.

During the 2000 Presidential election, most news sources had
decided on red for Republican and blue for Democrat. When a Time Magazine representative was asked
why that was. He remarked that ‘red’
starts with an R and so does Republican.
Yes, well, OK, I guess that makes sense.

Tuesday, November 4, 2014

I wasn’t going to comment on
this situation. It is so intensely
personal for her and her family. I know most of you have
already read much about this. I’m
referring to Brittany Maynard, the young woman, who on Saturday took her own
life under Oregon’s Death with Dignity statute.
A recent resident of Portland, she and her husband had moved here from
California so that she could have some control over her remaining days. She had been diagnosed with terminal brain
cancer and had only weeks to live.

Brittany, 29 years-old at the
time of her medically supervised self-inflicted death, must have been an
extremely brave and pragmatic person.
Some call it suicide. Some call
it a merciful end. It appears that
Brittany made her decision to relieve her own suffering, as well as the
suffering of her immediate family.

That said, I’m writing because
the ‘God’ issue has come up.

As reported in the news
media: “A senior Vatican official has
condemned as wicked the assisted suicide of Brittany Maynard, an
American woman suffering from terminal brain cancer.” And per the official: “… to commit suicide is not a good thing, it
is a wicked thing because it is saying no both to one's own life and to
everything which signifies respect for our mission in this world and towards
those closest to us.”

In view of circumstances, this
statement by the Vatican was, to me, offensive.
I’m not a Catholic. I should acknowledge
that fact. I can best describe myself as
an Agnostic. And, I am not qualified to
discuss religious doctrine. However, it
appears that God is the issue and the fanciful dictates of those who
presumably are in the know. Am I
right? And, is not the Vatican
attempting to speak on behalf of God?

I know these two facts. No one, including the Pope, knows if there is
a God. On the other hand, no one
including our most learned scientists know that there is not a God. No one.
Absolutely no one. And, as a
result, no one knows what constitutes sin in the eyes of a possible God or an
improbable God – depending upon your perspective.Mr. Senior Vatican Official, I wish you would
have kept your comments to yourself. Let
this young woman rest in peace. And, if
you have some spare time on your hands, how about pontificating on ISIS? Talk about wicked.

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Some of you may be aware that, besides this commentary blog - which I enjoy doing, I also like to occasionally write short stories. I have recently posted a short story on my sister blog: Online True Stories. The title of the most recent story is That Night.Said story and previous stories can be found at the following. They are probably best read in the indicated order:

Thursday, October 23, 2014

November 4th, Election Day, is fast
approaching. I sent in my ballot today.

For those outside of Oregon, you should understand that we
have a vote-by-mail process. Ballots
have already been received by the registered voters in the State and quite a
few Oregonians have already voted.

What
do I think about voting by mail? Well, it's convenient, but there is definitely an opportunity for minor fraud with that system, and I am
sure it exists to some degree. I would
prefer voting in person and showing photo ID prior to casting one’s ballot; but, of
course, that concept is abhorrent to a predominately ‘blue state’ like
Oregon. So we tolerate a little fraud
here and there. Things like a friend or family member voting for an elderly person – and then having the elderly person scribble their name on
the ballot. Do I know for a fact that
such practices have occurred? Yes.

I don’t vote on every ballot measure or political
position. For example, I did not vote
for the position of US House of Representatives. Why bother?
Earl Blumenauer, the Democrat, will win this District. It’s a no-contest. Districts have been ‘gerrymandered’ to the
point that there is no actual contest in some of them. Party big-wigs pick the candidate, and the
candidate wins in a landslide by acquiring as little as 10% of the votes of
those citizens actually registered in the District. It’s embarrassing. It’s really kind of sad, kind of pathetic.

I voted for Measure 90; “Changes general election nomination
processes: provides for single primary ballot listing candidates; top two
advance.” As an Independent, for
example, I can’t vote in the Primary in any significant way. Well, they try to make believe you can
participate by organizing some hokey primary for the Independents, but it
really means nothing. Oh, I know, it’s
possible under this proposed system that, in subsequent general elections, we
could have two Democrats running against each other in this District. But, we’d still have a choice – which we do
not now have.

I voted against Legalized Recreational Marijuana. If you’ve read my previous blog posts on this
subject, that probably comes as no surprise.
My concern is for kids and young people.
It just sends the wrong message.
Enough said…

I voted against Measure 88; “Provides Oregon resident
‘driver card’ without requiring proof of legal presence in the United
States.” Yes, I’ve heard all the
arguments in favor. I just can’t
understand why we should facilitate, encourage, act as an accomplice to anyone
breaking Federal Law (Misprision of a Felony).
However, such dubious and vacillating legal standards seem to be becoming more
and more prevalent.

Yes, and I am
including Legalized Recreational Marijuana in this opinion.
We either have laws or we don’t. And,
please don’t tell me the roads will be safer with ‘illegal immigrants’ driving
around and those others, who are so inclined, smoking a ‘joint.’

Think about this.
They say that the ‘illegal immigrants’ who are given a ‘driver card’
will be required to have insurance. That’s
nice. What insurance company is going to
give an ‘illegal’ liability insurance, without the State of Oregon indemnifying
the company? And, wouldn’t this insurance,
logically, be very expensive?

Let me give you a hypothetical. An ‘illegal’ is involved in a very serious
accident to which he has been presumed liable.
Let’s say this is a multi-million dollar suit involving someone left permanently
paralyzed. In the meantime, said ‘illegal’
has returned to his country of origin and left his insurance company to defend
a case without the insured being present.
Trust me. Insurance companies
consider these potential circumstances and charge premiums accordingly.

Answer:
The State of Oregon will have to make certain guarantees to indemnify
insurance companies or those companies will not insure ‘illegals.’ And, as a result, if you’re still with me,
you will already have guessed who ultimately will pay the multi-million dollar
judgment, the Oregon taxpayers.

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

OK, let’s get serious.
You don’t seriously believe, do you, that Governor Kitzhaber (age 67)
did not know about the past history of Cylvia Hayes (age 47), his long-time
girlfriend and recent fiancée? Come on,
Kitzhaber is an educated man, an apparently sophisticated man, surrounded by
advisors; and nobody, including the Governor, thought to check into Cylvia’s
background: her past marriages, her
allegedly illegal marijuana grow operation, etc., etc.

Doesn’t this sound a little like the Neil
Goldschmidt cover-up? Neil, our past and
possibly our most infamous Governor, molested a young girl over a period of
time. But, those around him who would
have known, or suspected what was occurring, kept quiet. Yes, unfortunately, that’s professional
politics ladies and gentlemen. And, when
these little indiscretions surface, everybody denies knowledge or extends a
weepy apology with the expectation that all will be forgiven. Are we that gullible? Answer:
yes. Kitzhaber, the Democrat,
supported by the public employee unions, minorities, abortion advocates, recreational
marijuana advocates and the generally uninformed, will win re-election in a walk.

Of Note:

Hayes took $5000, in 1997, to participate in a sham marriage
to an Ethiopian immigrant – allowing him permanent residency in the U.S. Hayes’ action was a Federal felony. She was never prosecuted because the
information, reportedly, just recently surfaced. Hayes made a tearful confession for the media
saying that Kitzhaber never knew about the previous marriage. Yes, of course he didn’t.

Another recent report discovered that she was involved with
a “dangerous man” (her words) in an intended marijuana grow operation in
Washington – if discovered, at the time, another potential felony.

And, then, of course, there have been complaints to the
Oregon Government Ethics Commission that Hayes has used her close association
with the Governor to further her own questionable career. Complaints which, to no one’s particular surprise,
were largely determined to be unfounded.

Monday, October 20, 2014

Bear with me. I will
get back to my blog theme very shortly.
Today, however, I had some outdoor projects to work on. My sidekick, Watson, kept busy trying to
unearth a mole. However, no luck. As you can see, his bath was to follow.

Saturday, October 11, 2014

I don’t mean to be offensive or insensitive, as some will almost
certainly infer; but I don’t particularly like the way that ‘gay marriage’ has
been foisted upon the public. The Courts
have, again, gone off on one of their social-engineering tangents; which is, of
course, in the best interests of all of us in the public who they (the Judges)
believe are generally pretty bigoted and kind of ignorant. They know best; at least they believe they
know best – which is all that counts.

I hold no ill-will towards homosexuals. I think they deserve equal rights. But, quite frankly, I don’t believe the
homosexual community is, or will be, content with so called equal rights. I think gay marriage is more like laying the
groundwork for ‘minority status,’ as is now applied to racial minorities and,
in some instances, females. Society is
already leaning heavily in that direction on behalf of homosexuals and transsexuals. ‘Hate crimes,’ new hiring practices and other
legislation often pertains specifically to protections now guaranteed to homosexuals
– many in the name of the apparently innocuous concept ‘diversity.’ Caucasian (non-Hispanic), 'straight' males should be prepared
to get up off their flabby, white butts and move to the back of the bus.

It was interesting to note that the media has cited that
approximately 60% of Americans favor or have no objection to ‘gay marriage.’ That may be true – depending upon how the
question was worded. But, when 80 to 90%
of Americans could not name the three branches of the Federal Government, the
above referenced poll gives small comfort to whether or not the public really
understands the implications of ‘gay marriage.’

And, homosexuals, when they do marry (and this is largely
the fault of the media and its coverage) don’t seem to want to ease through the
door, and let the rest of us get used to the idea, they want to break down the
door and usurp all the widely practiced customs and traditions of heterosexual marriage
– kind of in your face, a get-used-to-it tactic.

A couple weeks back, a male television actor was being
interviewed and he referred to his partner as his husband. Does that bother anyone else – just me? Am I the only one who is just a bit taken-aback
by such comments? Many would say, this
is the new ‘normal.’ Well, the previous ‘normal’
was in place for hundreds, if not thousands of years, so this might take me a
little time.

I think we heterosexuals should organize a silent
protest. What do I have in mind? Well, if homosexuals want all the cultural
trappings of married life – so be it. We
need to be respectful and tolerant, but we don’t have to completely go
along. I suggest we ditch wedding rings
and terminology like wife and husband.
How about using the term ‘partner?’
Gays previously used the term, but they won’t need it anymore. Regarding wedding and engagement rings, take
them off, put them on a chain, and keep them close to your heart where they
actually belong. And, heterosexuals, if it’s really, really
important that you publicly advertise the fact that you’re married, how about getting a tattoo?

Wednesday, October 8, 2014

When I was in corporate security with a major company, I was
having dinner with one of the company’s facility managers. Nice guy.
He was asking me about my previous experience in the FBI; and the topic
of Margo St. James and prostitution came up.
He said that he wanted to ask me something – kind of personal.

He went on to say that his wife had, for the
most part, lost interest in sex – and, in fact, she never had much interest,
although they had conceived two children together. He said that about every six months he and
his wife would drive to Nevada and visit the casinos. In addition, they would usually take a drive to
one of the adjacent counties where prostitution is legal; and visit a business like
the Mustang Ranch. While his wife read a
book in the car, he would go inside and hire a prostitute. He asked me if I thought this was weird. Although at the time I did think that our conversation
had taken an odd turn, and that it was really more than I cared to know about
his personal life, I responded: “No, not
at all.” And, I was being truthful. If that arrangement was fine with his wife,
why would or should anyone else care?

And, why is most of the public, apparently, against
prostitution (sex exchanged for money), when it’s all around us in various
guises? I’m really not quite sure. Let’s be clear. I’m not referring to pimping, violence or exploiting
minors. I’m talking about two consenting
adults.

Oregon law reads as follows:

§ 167.007¹

Prostitution

A person commits the
crime of prostitution if the person engages in, or offers or agrees to engage
in, sexual conduct or sexual contact in return for a fee.

§ 167.008¹

Patronizing a
prostitute

A person commits the
crime of patronizing a prostitute if the person pays, or offers or agrees to
pay, a fee to engage in sexual conduct or sexual contact.

Both are misdemeanors under Oregon law.

Pretty straightforward description of what constitutes the
crime of ‘prostitution’ and ‘patronizing a prostitute,’ isn’t it? And, I might add, it’s very cleverly
worded. If, for example, you were to
remove the word ‘fee’ and replace it with the word ‘money’ or ‘gratuity’: well,
you can see the problems that might jump out.
You would have opened Pandora’s Box.
This could then apply to many marriages, cohabitating couples, girlfriends
and ‘one-night-stands.’ Unless the woman,
in such a relationship, could prove that she was self-supporting or did not actually
have sex with her partner, paramour or date; and if the more intimate
circumstances were to become known, than we might have a prima facie case for prostitution.

Said law, ambiguous at best, victimless perhaps, begs the
question; don’t our law enforcement agencies have something better to occupy
their time?

Sunday, October 5, 2014

This post is a continuation of my post of 9/29/14 (Prostitution / Everyone Has an Opinion /
Everyone is Wrong).

Margo St. James was the principal organizer of COYOTE (Call
Off Your Old Tired Ethics); which was considered to be, in late 70s San
Francisco, to be the prostitutes’ union (association).

I was an FBI Special Agent assigned to the Organized Crime
Squad in San Francisco. The Bureau, at
the time, expected all Agents to cultivate ‘sources’ that potentially could
have information of value to the FBI. It
was actually more than an expectation.
Part of an Agent’s performance evaluation was based on his ability to
establish mission-related sources-of-information in the local community or the
state. Margo was something of a Bay Area
celebrity with potentially all kinds of contacts, some with possible criminal
connections. I decided that I would
attempt to meet her.

I read everything I could find on Margo St. James relating
to her background, her current activities, and her expressed opinions. Having committed much of that information to
memory, I approached her at the offices of COYOTE. I showed her my credentials and introduced
myself. I had brought with me photos of
missing women and girls – a pretext of sorts.
San Francisco, in those days, was a magnet for girls and young
women. Pimps often roamed the bus
terminals looking for runaways and naïve young women seeking the hippy
lifestyle. And, as might be expected,
many young women simply disappeared; and more than a few ended-up as Jane Does
in the local morgues. When I first
contacted Margo, she seemed receptive to talking – apparently curious as to
what I was doing there. From that
initial contact, a somewhat friendly relationship gradually evolved.

As was customary (required in the Bureau), I formally opened
a file on Margo as a potential source.
This allowed me some protection against compromise, as well as allowed
me to buy her lunch on a few occasions – at Bureau expense. It should be understood that I never paid
Margo as an informant, nor would she have expected that.

Our meetings, unbeknownst to Margo, were monitored. For example, another Agent was always in
close proximity when I took Margo to lunch.
When I visited her, the other Agent waited discreetly outside,
monitoring my demeanor when I entered her offices, how long I was in there, and
my demeanor when I came out. Margo would
not have been above compromising an FBI Agent – and everything was done to
prevent that possibility. She once asked
me if I wanted to meet ‘a woman.’ “Just
describe her,” she said. “And I’ll have
her here in thirty minutes.” Was she
serious? She appeared to be. Although, I think her comment was meant more
as a test than an actual offer. If I had
showed the slightest interest in meeting a ‘working girl,’ she probably would
have quickly written me off as just one more sleazy cop on the ‘make.’ In her extensive career, I’m sure that she
had met a few. However, I made it clear that
she was the one I wanted to talk to; and she ultimately accepted that
arrangement. In retrospect, I think that
she welcomed, for what it’s worth, the possibility of having a perceived contact (a
source) in the Bureau.

What was Margo St. James like? It’s hard to describe. She was intelligent, articulate, interesting,
bizarre, outlandish, outspoken, profane and obscene. Everything I expected her to be, and then
some. No longer, at that point, a
practicing prostitute (to my knowledge), she described her early years, often
plying her trade dressed as a Catholic nun.
Apparently, according to her, this had a particular appeal to many
Catholic men.

Unfortunately, our relationship ended when, under The Freedom of Information Act, she
requested any information the Bureau might possess on her. Ridiculous as this might sound, the
Bureau told her that she was currently a ‘source’ of Special Agent Nelson. Upon learning this information, she called me
and chewed-me-out, telling me in no uncertain terms that she wanted no further
contacts with me. That ended our
relationship.

About a year after that, I resigned from the Bureau to
pursue other endeavors.

I have sometimes wondered if I owed Margo an apology. The status, as a ‘Bureau source,’ to which
she strongly stated her objection, must have smarted just a bit. It was, nonetheless, the only way I could justify
my association with her; and, furthermore, allow me to discuss with her the many
subjects that often had more to do with the protection of prostitutes and young
women from criminality, rather than the criminality of prostitution. Prostitution can be a dangerous, dirty
business, a magnet for crime and criminals; and it is especially dangerous for
young women or girls unfamiliar with all the aspects of the prostitution
business. In some respects, Margo and I
had similar goals. Anyway, in her own
way, she was quite the educator.

Regarding FBI ‘sources’ or ‘informants,’ many might have a
misconception as to how that works. The
FBI’s philosophy, at the time, was to have their Agents get out of the office,
get into the local community and cultivate contacts. Some might believe that the FBI only
developed relationships with members of organizations like the Mafia or the Hell’s Angels. This is, of course, sometimes possible and desirable,
but very rare. In attempting to gain
information about Mafia members’ activities or movements, an Agent might want
to build a relationship with someone close to a Mafia member, such as someone in
his family or someone who works in a restaurant he owns where money laundering
was suspected. With the Hell’s Angels,
who in the 70s were considered to be involved in several variations of
organized crime, someone who worked on their motorcycles might be a good
source. How so? Well, a motorcycle mechanic could furnish you
names, information on leadership, banking information, club member
personalities, etc.

As far as someone like Margo is concerned, it was a given
that participants in criminal activities also frequented prostitutes. For the Mafia, it was one of their passions.

Anyway, during the period that I knew her, she never gave me
any information that directly related to my cases, or organized crime with any
specificity. I came to doubt she knew
much about that sort of thing. We did,
occasionally, discuss lost or missing girls.
We discussed the prostitution business, and the reasons some women and
some men enter that business. When talking
about adults, who are not coerced in some manner to enter prostitution, Margo’s
description of the business was fairly straightforward and matter-of-fact. Some women like the trade, but most are there
for the money. She did, nonetheless,
acknowledge the many dangers involved.

Three Laws for Effective Gun Control

Here are three potential laws that I would recommend for effective gun control:

1) Convicted felon in possession of a gun: automatic three years in prison - no judicial discretion - no chance for parole.

2) Knowingly selling or furnishing a gun to a convicted felon: automatic three years in prison - no judicial discretion - no chance for parole.

3) Theft of a gun, during the commission of a felony: automatic three years in prison - no judicial discretion - no chance for parole - sentence in addition to any time associated with the attendant felony.